[Slowhand] Re: Hitching A Ride ...

[DeltaNick]

>> I've always wondered why so many people's musical tastes seem "stuck"
(for lack of a better term) in a particular era or time in their life -
usually in the formative years, while other people's interests seem to grow
and diversify as they grow older. For instance, consider this: take EC fans
who are "stuck" on Cream - a good
chunk of them will tend to be of a certain age.  Blind Faith? A little
younger.  D&D? Here again.  Etc. etc. This certainly doesn't apply to all
fans but there is an interesting correlation.  There's an old saying "you
can't teach an old dog new tricks" and there are obviously some flaws in
making that a global pronouncement, but then again so many people seem to
have their tastes in music, movies, arts, literature, etc. formed at a
certain point in their life and then stop growing. <<

Although nostalgia is often a reason why some people get "stuck" in a
certain period, it is not the ONLY reason why one may enjoy a particular
period of an artist's career more than other periods. So, by definition,
this is NOT "stuck" at all. Furthermore, your point here seems to come from
the false premise that "growth," a neutral term, is necessarily good. Growth
can be positive, but it can be negative just as well.

"Growth" is NOT always positive: for example, a growing tumor can kill.
Let's remember that "growth," a much-overused term, is a two-way street. And
when it comes to art, the term "growth" is nearly meaningless, and subject
to various, equally valid interpretations. One can grow in ability: do more
and better math, become better at a native or foreign language, become a
better and more-skilled marksman, a better chef, a measurably "faster"
guitar player. But one can also grow tall, big, fat, or small, as many do
when reaching a certain age.

Most sports figures -- and I contend most artists as well -- tend to peak at
certain points of their careers. The New York Yankee Mickey Mantle, for
example, peaked during the 1956-1962 period of his Major League Baseball
career, which began earlier and ended later (1951-1969, if I remember
correctly). Another Yankee, Babe Ruth peaked during the 1920s, although he
played from the 1910s into the 1930s. And some sports figures and artists
have several peaks, although a subsequent peak may not be as high as the
initial one, or vice versa.

So, my belief is that Clapton peaked -- as a guitarist -- during the
1965-1969 period, which includes recording stints with John Mayall And The
Bluesbreakers, Eric Clapton And The Powerhouse, Cream, and Blind Faith.
However, Clapton has had other guitar peaks: the 1993-1995 Nothing But The
Blues tours, during which time he released "From The Cradle," for example.
And Clapton seems to be peaking, again as a guitarist, during the current
period, which I think began in late 2003, while touring Japan. Clapton
reached a guitar playing nadir -- the opposite of a peak -- during the
1970s. Although capable of playing some pretty fine guitar, he consciously
chose not to do so, and instead depended on others, such as George Terry, to
play lead guitar in his band. Personally, Clapton's guitar playing, during
most of the 1970s and 1980s, was deeply disappointing to me. We all know
that these were Clapton's drunk years: he admits this himself. I felt that
he'd played SO much better earlier in his career, and I still do.

However, there are other aspects of Clapton's career: singer, bandleader,
songwriter, etc. And these other aspects may have different peaks from
Clapton The Guitarist. For example, I believe that his singing peak began in
the early 1990s and extends to today. His songwriting peak -- his most
productive songwriting period -- seems to have ocurred during the
early-to-mid '90s. And he peaked touring while with Cream, when it seemed to
be a never-ending tour: they were on the road much of their 2-plus-year life
(July 1966-November 1968).

As an overall performer, to us, it seems that Clapton may be peaking today.
Or is this also a false idea? His record sales are nowhere near his peak. I
think "From The Cradle" was #1 on the charts the day it was released both in
the US and the UK. Today's record sales do not in any way compare. So, when
was his performing peak? Was it with Cream, during "From The Cradle," or is
it today? It's really all a matter of personal taste, of one's opinion.

For a long time during the 1970s and 1980s, I thought that Clapton himself
was "stuck" in whatever was the latest trend (both clothing-wise and
musically). My strongly-held belief is that a person -- either fan or
artist -- who becomes overly concerned and dependent on the latest fashion
trends does NOT have a strong character, cannot stand up for himself, and
lacks the facility to decide on his or her own direction: a moral weakling.
I don't believe that this is the case with Clapton today, but I think that
Clapton has pretty much admitted that the preceding sentence adequately
describes him during the 1970s and much of the 1980s.

On the other hand, what I think should concern us all much more than
nearly-meaningless concepts of "being stuck" and "growth" is this: I have
often wondered why some people have no facility for thinking: critical
analysis. It seems that some couldn't figure their way out of a paper bag if
their lives depended on it. And the illiteracy displayed on the Internet
certainly tends to confirm this belief. What does it take to say what you
mean, to figure out whether an idea will carry water, to defend your point
of view, to argue with conviction, and without personal attacks?

Nobody's perfect, but really, how much does it take to proofread an e-mail,
or is this too great an intellectual effort?

                DeltaNick